By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Torillian on 28 October 2018
Edit Thread
DrDoomz said:
Torillian said:

1. You don't think that the president's words have more impact and authority behind them than Madonna's? I would argue that it's much easier to feel justified in something when someone from a position of authority says it rather than someone whose music you like. 

2. I also notice that you said "given equal reach/coverage" but that's not the case s it? The president has far more reach and coverage as he should in most cases. 

3. All of this is assuming we're limiting the discussion solely to one's ability to "rile up a crazy person". Looking at the questions more holistically though, I think you cannot underestimate the importance of someone being able to put their divisive thoughts into practice through policy. 

1. I don’t see how you’d feel that. Being justified to do what? How is feeling slightly more justified make them much more likely act a certain way? How is that better than being able to incite powerful emotional responses? I mean how about talk show commentators justifying certain actions thru expert oration? Wouldn’t that have a stronger impact than the words of an oratorially-inept politician?

2. Depends. The media controls reach. And they can even control the message. They can twist Trump’s words if they choose to do so. Or enhance it for maximum damage. Maybe we’re both looking at the wrong party here when it comes to damage caused by negative rhetoric?

3. I’m not underestimating, though. My question was how “But Trump is President” has become some kind of catch-all response when the rhetoric from the left is brought up as I feel that, to be logically consistent and intellectually honest, we need to condemn both to condemn one. I, personally, are in the camp of “I don’t really care” as I am strongly for personal responsibility but I am actually just curious on how those who use that logic have it works out in their mind.

1. I think we just disagree on this one. To me, the president of the united states has much more reach and influence than any of the people listed on the left so I think it's reasonable to try and tackle that first. Getting Trump to stop using such rhetoric is the single most impactful thing one can do if you want to curb negative rhetoric. 

3. As someone who would prefer no negative rhetoric on either side, I would like to curb it in the most effective way. So rather than try to curb things from the general nebulous mob of "the left" I think it is much more useful, practical, and important to focus on the single most powerful person in the world and his rhetoric. After that I'll try to work on the comedians and talk show hosts. 



...